Stumped - again!

[artme]

So, Tony Mokbell has his and his families" assets siezed for indulging in his wicked ways. Fair enough!!

What about the aseets of the Adler and Williams families? why could they not be siezed?? One law for and ona law for???

[Ivan in Oz]

White Collar Socialite Class,
Sporting Celebrities

AND

Others......................................You & I

[dazzler]

Property obtained through the Proceeds of Crime (POCA 2002) can be confiscated.

Point out the property they obtained through Criminal Acts and I am sure it will be confiscated.

[artme]

Splitting haits Dazzler.
Would Adler and Williams have acquired all their gains without acting dishonestly??

[bitingmidge]

Splitting hairs too artme, would they have not acquired something in lawful transactions?

P

[artme]

I would think the by definition if a business is acting dishonestly then its acquisitions will be dishonestly obtained.

[echnidna]

in that event Telstra owes lotsa people

[wayfarer]

As hair rasiing as this sounds perhaps Tony Mokbell wasn't smart (or devious) enough to make sure his assets were protected like Adler et al?

[Sturdee]

Mokbell earned his income from crime, the others earned their income by way of salary, directors fees and dividends.

They did not commit any crimes to justify their assets being taken away, all they did was breach their duties as imposed by the companies acts in the way they acted as directorand for that breach they paid the appropriate penalty.

Next you'll say that every office worker that makes a mistake in their work should have their assets confiscated as well.


Peter.

[OLDPHART]

Thats a fair call

[Sebastiaan56]

What about the aseets of the Adler and Williams families? why could they not be siezed?? One law for and ona law for???

Unfortunately share investments are risky, companies go broke, remember Ansett? There are lot of punters in the market who do not understand what they are getting into. Its a bit like betting on the races.

Adler and Williams did their time, the law has spoken. This "rule of the street" / shock jock stuff just undermines the established legal system of our country. Makes us the same as Kenya / Zimbabwe. No thx

[artme]

• In no way suggesting "law of the jungle". Whatever gave anyone that perception?
• Sturdee, you last paragraph is tripe! How can you draw such an inference?
• I stand By my assertion of double standards. The sooner that laws and regulations are amended so that directors are held properly accountable for their actions the better off we shall all be.
• Remember Estate Mortgage and Tricontinental? Estate Mortgage was taking people's money up until they closed their doors for Pete's sake! It is time we drew a line under this business of law/ethics when it comes to financial losses that effect so many people.
• Remember the saying "The law, sir, is an ass"? Well so it is!!

[Sebastiaan56]

• I stand By my assertion of double standards. The sooner that laws and regulations are amended so that directors are held properly accountable for their actions the better off we shall all be.
• Remember Estate Mortgage and Tricontinental? Estate Mortgage was taking people's money up until they closed their doors for Pete's sake! It is time we drew a line under this business of law/ethics when it comes to financial losses that effect so many people.

Sorry mate, I didnt mean to come across so inflamatory. I cant speak for others integrity so the motivation of some directors will need to remain a mystery. But the law has proved reasonably efficient at determining where criminal behaviour has occurred and punishment is meted out. Where the money has gone, its gone and there is a well established precedence for creditors to failed businesses. Shareholders come way down the line. Im sitting on some five figure losses as a supplier to some failed businesses and I come above the shareholders.

The problem comes when the money has gone. Every government in the last 20 years has tried to shut down the system where people move their personal assets around to protect them from predators, they are called trusts. They will never do it because most farmers (and a lot of businesses) use trusts and they couldnt risk the farms in Aus being closed down and the farmers personal assets stripped when things go bad, eg a drought. Similarly, I have a friend who runs a take away who had someone after them when they slipped outside their shop. They got a hot shot lawyer who tried to go him for $5mil for damages and suffering. His kids would have had nowhere to live, his employees would be out of a job, his suppliers would lose business and his community a shop that opened on a Sunday and he would be paying the debt for the rest of his life! The litigant was compensated through public liability insurance because the assets were in a trust. Medical expenses and $6K. With a kangaroo system, eg the states, he would have lost the lot.

Further, if there have been assets accumulated over a long period by a number of people, how much do you go for?

I know it seems unfair, if you have lost money Id get better financial advice in the future. But beware of trying to rip down legitimate protection for genuine businesses. I will fight for them tooth and nail. There are thousands of malicious litigants and only a couple of Adler's a year.

[bitingmidge]

Remember Estate Mortgage and Tricontinental? Estate Mortgage was taking people's money up until they closed their doors for Pete's sake! It is time we drew a line under this business of law/ethics when it comes to financial losses that effect so many people.

Until their doors closed, they were still in business were they not?

If they'd had a crystal ball, they would have undoubtedly done something very different, and they'd still be in business.

I love this double standard crap. The reason people invest in places with bigger returns may be "greed" or it may be simply to maximise their return (is there a difference? -I think so). If they do it without realising that bigger returns mean bigger risk, then that's their own stupid fault.

NO company knows it's going to go bust "next Tuesday", all are trying to stay afloat, even the ones in dire trouble. If they telegraph they are in trouble, a run on their accounts will certainly end their business. There's no way out.

If I had shares in a company that was struggling, I'd rather they fought to the end, with the honest expectation of trading through.

If the directors took all the money from the last few days trade and flew to South America, that would be a different thing.

Cheers,

P

[Sturdee]

Sturdee, you last paragraph is tripe! How can you draw such an inference?

Obviously I disagree with you else I wouldn't have posted it.

FYI such inference is simple and correct if I accept your argument.

For if you extend your reasoning to its proper conclusion you would suggest that if an employee, and directors are employeees as well, makes a mistake (for example invest their employer cash surplus money in companies like Estate Mortgage or Tricontinental) and as such the employer goes broke the employee be responsible and loose his own assets.


Peter.